Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?

Discussion in 'The Voting Booth' started by KO2134, Aug 27, 2013.

?

Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?

  1. Yes

    46 vote(s)
    50.0%
  2. No

    32 vote(s)
    34.8%
  3. Unsure

    7 vote(s)
    7.6%
  4. Need more information

    7 vote(s)
    7.6%
  1. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    754
    26
    48
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2014
  2. JohnnyFlotsam

    JohnnyFlotsam Premium Member

    485
    62
    28
    FTFA...
    "And if CO2 does get to be a problem, Dyson believes we can just do some genetic engineering to create a new species of super-tree that can suck up the excess."

    Dr. Dyson should probably stick to his area of expertise. I suspect that the bulk of those with serious expertise in genetic engineering would disagree with him, just like most those with serious expertise in climate science do.
     
  3. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    754
    26
    48
    This just show you why you are not thinking of science and new data and theories in the eveolution debate. There are sever thing wrong in what you have said.

    First just because his papers have been published in physics dosen't mean he dosen't have expertise in other subjects. Physics pays the bills and study of climate is a hobby.

    Second genetically engineered anything is just a way to speed up evolution look at corn and the grass it started as. Eveloution by design is the same as genetically engineered stuff.

    Also with true evolution only backing the supper trees/ plant would just happen. In the last 10 years CO2 levels have been decreasing and some farmers have been using charcole as a soil amindment and in hydroponic hot houses they have been makeing the atmosphere 2 to 4% high CO2 than outside.

    Eveolution is in all asspect of life Phyics, Biology, and Religion. We are human and not omnipotent, but I do know limiting my though and theories to the subject I get paid for will never expand the my horizons. This Thread is do you beleive in "Darwins" Eveloution which is limiting. I beleive in evolution but I also beleive that God (the GAOTU) started it, planed it and is letting it evolve. This is not what Darwin was doing he was trying to control the debate by his theory. NO one can control my thoughts, my knowledge and my conclutions they can only use the liberal/progresive way of stopping the debate by saying I don't know science, I don't have expertise and define what I say as myth.
     
  4. dfreybur

    dfreybur Premium Member

    3,935
    2,396
    133
    Actually, Freeman Dyson's area of expertise is called "futurist". He makes a living projecting advances in science and technology across many fields. His field of highest expertise is physics but he is required to know them all. His take one any one field that he works with is about the Masters degree level.

    I find it interesting that Dyson thinks the error bars in climatology are larger than full time climatologists think. He knows multiple fields of science well enough to have a very good outsider's perspective. Notice that the "95% certainty" in current climatology discussions means the error bar (expected error between the data and the current best models) is 5%. That's enormous compared to other fields.

    I also find it interesting that Dyson thinks the coming progress in plant genetic engineering (one of today's names for the current form of Darwinian evolution) will progress faster than current genetic engineers think. He thinks fast growing trees will be engineered. I had been thinking of algae being engineered as a side effect of the efforts to make solar power oil. The tree engineering I had considered was for deeper faster growing roots to help clean out contaminated ground water (currently using poplar and dogwood at Argonne National Laboratory) then putting them to use to turn old trash landfills into lumber fields.
     
  5. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    754
    26
    48
    Not to get to far off topic you may like http://www.oilgae.com/. When you said what you had about the algae I thought you might and the problem with putting trees in to landfills is that the EPA requires you to stop water from getting to the trash. This also causes the problem where stuff won't rot not having enough mosture. If we could inject water into more landfills we could get methane production that is clean enough to make electricy but not many landfills are allowed to do this. There is a landfill near Waco that is allowed to inject water that is producing 2 megawatts around the clock because of this. (off subject)
     
  6. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    754
    26
    48
    As everyone can see everything is connected. Laws evolve because we think we know some thing so we can't fix problems. knowalege evovle because we share our experances and resurce and evolution happens form Darwins time into the future so that is why it is (one more time) a theory.
     
  7. nfasson

    nfasson Registered User

    74
    8
    8
    The simplest solution is to just let Nature do its thing. Less people and more habitat means more efficient sequestration of greenhouse gasses. To me, believing that we can engineer trees to be more efficient than four billion years of evolution is the height of arrogance.


    Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App
     
  8. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    754
    26
    48
    The arrogance is us not understanding eveloution has eengineered the trees to consume the amount of CO2 that they need to for a blance. It is not static and they will evelove to take in more CO2 when needed also we can just combin there DNA faster than they can. because the trees here will need to die and go away for newer and more efficant trees will grow in. Should we be loging and giving room for new trees to evolve? I guess all of the research into Algae is also the hight of arrogance. In the last 10 years UT Austin has made genatic modifcations to Algae which make a strain consume 80% of its weight in CO2 from 30%. The more CO2 it consume the more Lipids (oil) it produces. The same is the Trees it uses the carbin to grow and releases the O2. The problem with greenhouse gasses is we have had alot at deferent times in history and plants and animals have always evoled to handle them through evolution. We are a carbin based life form we need carbin to live and some scientist came up with a "theory" the high CO2 atmospher of Murcury is holding in the heat more than it would if it was like ours (many theorys).

    If we really think about it we are a part of eveloution and the words "man made global warming" is just a verable in eveloution and not a big enough peice of the picture to really make anything happen. this is shown by the amount of CO2 and other thing the EPA wants to control are put out of volcanao every hour. http://www.volcanodiscovery.com/erupting_volcanoes.html they put out more greenhouse gases every hour more than 100 time of man conbined an hour.
     
  9. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    754
    26
    48
    Have we ever really thought of why thing evolve. They don't evolve for no reasion everything evolves because of a stress on the orginisam and if it can't change it die's. Extinction of species is a part of evolution. So it always makes me think environmentalist are so arrogant thinking they can stop evolution. Man can only help speed up or slow down things they can not stop them.
     
  10. Radical540

    Radical540 Registered User

    87
    13
    8
    As the Sacred Volume of Law rests on all our Blue Lodge altars, it seems almost hypocritical to embrace "evolutionism".
     
  11. coachn

    coachn Coach John S. Nagy Premium Member

    2,127
    2,114
    133
    I can see this being a label that would be thrown into the ring when this situation is viewed through the lens of a black and white thinker. However, those individuals who can see truth in their chosen faith and also in aspects of what evolutionary thought promotes have no problem reconciling the perceived differences between the two. I believe Freemasonic Ritual directs all men to learn how to reconcile such things. That is why it is so important to do the Work that Ritual directs each of us to do. When we don't, we have difficulty reconciling things like this.

    As an aside: The SVoL is symbolic for what each man has etched within his heart. For each it is different. No Words written down by man can capture that. Hence the reason for stressing that the SVoL is symbolic, as are all the symbols that are put before each man as he participates in Ritual.
     
  12. Radical540

    Radical540 Registered User

    87
    13
    8
    Since of the requirements of masonry is to have a Belief in a Supreme Being, it would see counterproductive to embrace evolutionism at face value. As we as masons also embrace the supreme architect of the universe- the word architect being key.
    Now, who's not to say that deity "created" the concepts and steps thereof evolutionism..... a thought to ponder.
     
  13. coachn

    coachn Coach John S. Nagy Premium Member

    2,127
    2,114
    133
    I do not believe one has to embrace a label in total to embrace aspects of truth that any one philosophy (or faith) espouses. Finding fault or flaws within each should not dismiss any truth that each conveyed overall. As implied before, the lens of black and white thinking tends to promote absolutism. I've found any belief that embraces this lens to be so narrow that it prevents seeing all that is possible. This especially with maters related to God; where the possibility that God is behind the very mechanism of Evolution exists.

    The problem mankind has with expressing Evolutionary concepts is that it has yet to understand it fully much less find the words to convey what little is known, yet. Hence it is very easy to attack evolution at this point. Even easier when speaking out of ignorance of what little is known.

    In regard to the Supreme Architect theme: I understand that is left solely to the individual to decide how that plays out. "God" is seen differently by each individual. This includes how God's Works are viewed.
     
  14. Aeelorty

    Aeelorty Registered User

    98
    4
    8
    The idea is that if the environment changes to much life might change in such a way that it would be devastating for humanity. Recall what nature does best is kill. A Professor of mine once describes the body as a a fight between competing cells. Osteoblast versus osteoclast. We should always be concerned about knocking things out of balance because we can not guarantee that we will be able to balance again. Humans have been amazing at adapting and manipulating our environment and will we continue to be able to do it. That being said we do stand the change of letting vast amount of people die if we have no regard for ensuring that our environment stays as hospitable to our current life style.
     
  15. Aeelorty

    Aeelorty Registered User

    98
    4
    8
    We actually have a great idea about how it works, what are you suggestion that is not know?
     
  16. coachn

    coachn Coach John S. Nagy Premium Member

    2,127
    2,114
    133
    Magnitude my Brother. Magnitude. As much as is claimed to be known, and claimed to be understood, what is known and understood are drops in the ocean compared to the whole of Creation. This can be said about both sides of the argument. I am not suggesting this. I am stating it without full conviction.
     
  17. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    234
    63
    Proposing that the interaction of the osteoclast and the osteoblast is a "fight" is like claiming that there is a "fight" going on if an old building is demolished specifically to make way for a new building, and the "fight" is between the crews who demolished the old building and built the new building.
     
  18. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    234
    63
  19. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    754
    26
    48
    I know how this is wrong because because it says Masonory is anti-religion which it is not, it lets you choise any religion or dogma of a religion. I just can't find any thing wrong with the other parts after the research I have done in to the Darwin and Marx. After saying that I now need to do more research in to the other parts. But I think they are just trying to tie together any organation that they think is anti-religous. I do see Darwin as anti-religious. Darwins theory has not explaned the hominid DNA time lines and increase in hominid 7% increase in brain power that happened all at once.

    Masons like the US have a freedom of religion and not the freedom from religion. As Masons we must have a beleif in a supreme architect of the universe but not wich dogma to follow. Dogma is not religion and religion has many dogma's.
     
  20. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    234
    63
    And evolutionary theory as accepted by biology is not anti-religion, either. I know it because I am a Christian and I also am a biologist who accepts evolution as the most valid explanation of the diversity of life. As for what "Darwins theory" [sic] does or does not "explain"--what you claim makes no sense.

    Here is the modern evolutionary model in a nutshell:

    Biological diversity exists and a great deal of that is due to genomic and epigenomic variation, as recorded in the genome sequences and epigenomic markers. These variations can strongly influence the phenotype (organism), which can live in a population of other members of the same organism. These organisms can respond (survive and reproduce) with different levels of success, depending on genomic and epigenomic variation. Should a given different level of success be insufficiently high, the individuals with that variant will diminish and potentially die out. However, if a population is sufficiently large, these effects will be damped. However however, if a population gets isolated in some way, this effect will be magnified. Over sufficient time (usually thousands to millions of years), these can "add up". Likewise, once a species has "gone" in a different direction, it is intrinsically constrained regarding where it could "go" in the future. Now, "DNA time lines" are just a bunch of guesswork. The only "DNA time lines" that are not guesswork are timelines that have been directly sequenced. What we have is a very patchy neanderthal, a single complete denisovan, several sapiens genomes. We have several modern primate genomes, too. There is no "DNA time line". There is no measure of "brain power" that can be quantified. However, I will accept that a 7% increase in cranial capacity may have occurred. That's not inexplicable under the current model.

    Variation exists, including in brain sizes. That variation could reflect greater capacity to learn. Given enough time, a limited enough population, and a rigorous enough environment, that capacity will trend. Over enough time, a 7% positive trend can occur by simple weeding out. After all, artificial selection works this way, but a LOT faster.

    If one can merely, by fiat, state that evolutionary theory is automatically anti-religion, then one can make an equally valid argument about Freemasonry.
     

Share My Freemasonry